1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a method and device for typing thinking styles. More specifically, this invention relates to a group interactive method and device for determining people's thinking style types which they often express in their characteristic traits of temperament and personality. More specifically, this invention relates to a game that is enhanced by group interactions, and in the playing of which, an individual person's thinking style may be categorized into one of four distinct classes. Methods and devices of this invention are based on the foundation of a novel model for classifying individuals and groups of people's styles of thinking into four separate categories.
2. Background of the Invention and Related Information
Humans have long sought to understand each other's differences in thinking styles. Five centuries before Christ, Hippocrates attempted to improve medical diagnoses by postulating four types of temperaments which he termed: Sanguine, Choleric, Phlegmatic, and Melancholic. Hippocrates ascribed such diversities in the ways people think and behave to varying influences of different bodily fluids. His temperament types, known as the four humors, have been in continual usage until modern science provided better definitions.
For thousands of years Native Americans likewise had their "Medicine Wheel" which oriented four perspectives on life to ordinal compass points around a circle. Each of their four styles were symbolized by animals as follows: the Buffalo (north) represented cool wisdom, the Mouse (south) portrayed innocent trust, the Bear (west) characterized staying in place, and the Eagle (east) illustrated illumination and vision beyond.
With the advent of modern science and medical surgery, research has increasingly traced the causes of people's differences to varying operations in the brain. The work of noted Swiss psychologist Carl Jung in the 1920's and '30s led him to gather that there were four functions of the mind, two pairs opposing each other, which he labeled "Thinking" versus "Feeling" and "Sensation" versus "Intuition." He believed that although people all possess these abilities, one of the four functions dominates a person's personality. Based on the mental functions and attitudes that Jung described, in the 1950s psychologists Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs developed a personality test, the now widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI rates people's written responses to questions to measure four sets of opposing characteristics. Each set is a continuum with opposite ends designated by letters which denote the pair's behavioral extremes:
______________________________________ Extroversion E ......................... I Introversion Sensation S ......................... N INtuition Thinking T ......................... F Feeling Judging J ......................... P Perceiving ______________________________________
Testing identifies a person's gravitation toward one end or the other of each set of characteristics, and by the combination of which sixteen types of personalities are possible (for example, ESTJ, ISTJ, etc.). With this MBTI method, Jung's concept of a dominant function was lost in the mix, because each of the personality types is indicated by preferences for two functions plus two attitudes.
In the 1960s psycho-biologist Roger Sperry began experiments with people who previously had brain surgery to reduce symptoms of epilepsy. Because the procedure severed the nerve fibers connecting the two hemispheres of the cerebral cortex, Sperry was able to research how each hemisphere of the brain specialized in processing. From Sperry's and other "split-brain" studies as they were called, it became clear that typically each hemisphere of the brain has its own specialties of thought. The left hemisphere specializes in language, signs, logical thinking, calculation, analysis (taking things apart) and linear processing (going step by step). The right hemisphere specializes in spatial patterns, symbols, holistic thinking, visual ideation, synthesis (putting things together), and imaginative conceptualization (expanding outside the box). In addition to its own specialties, each hemisphere appears to have very rudimentary capabilities for the other hemisphere's specialties as well. From these findings people began to describe themselves and others as "left brain" or "right brain" personalities, depending on which of the two types of thinking they were most gifted.
In the 1970s and '80s, Ned Herrmann conceived of different modes of thought occurring in various regions of the brain, in the higher level cortex and lower level limbic system. His Whole Brain Model comprised four quadrants of thinking styles linked to particular regions of the brain, with processes occurring on the left or right sides as represented here:
______________________________________ A-quadrant D-quadrant Analytical, quantitative, Intuitive, holistic, logical, fact-based integrating, synthesizing B-quadrant C-quadrant Organized, sequential Interpersonal, feeling-based planned, detailed kinesthetic, emotional ______________________________________
In Herrmann's model, the four clusters of processing are typically available in each person, but one or more of the clusters is naturally dominant in a person's temperament, similar to Jung's theory. Through two decades of testing and applying his model to organizations, Herrmann amassed findings which indicate that the population is evenly distributed among these four types of thinking specialties. That is, 25% of the people show dominance in A-type analytical thinking, another 25% show dominance in B-type organized thinking, and so on around all four quadrants. This data suggests that groups and societies operate in such a way that each person's specialties of thought are balanced among the group as a whole. Although people are not all created equal, different styles of thinking appear to serve equally weighed roles in balancing each other to optimally achieve the group's common purposes. This generally fits with data in the 1970's by psychologists David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates. Their studies of married couples with Myers-Briggs testing showed an equal distribution among particular personality types: 25% were TJ's (favoring Thinking with Judging), 25% were FJ's (Feeling with Judging), 25% FP's (Feeling with Perceiving), and 25% TP's (Thinking with Perceiving). These Myers-Briggs types roughly equate to sides of the square Herrmann model (Herrman's AB side being TJ's, BC side FJ's, and so on). This data corroborates the understanding of thinking styles as a system in which each combination of thinking processes is offset and balanced by its corresponding opposite among the population as a whole.
In the 1980's Katherine Benziger modified Herrmann's model with new theories by neurosurgeon Karl Pribram. Pribram suspected that the four different modes of thought were all processed in the uppermost cerebral cortex of the brain, but in its different quadrants of the left and right hemispheres' frontal and basal lobes. Although the locations of the processing were different from Herrmann's, her four-way model of modes of thought was similar:
______________________________________ Front Left quadrant Front Right quadrant Analyzing, evaluating, Imagining, conceptualizing, making goals and decisions generating holistic images Basal Left quadrant Basal Right quadrant Sequencing, planning Harmonizing, synthesizing, details, carrying out associating expression and meaning orderly routines ______________________________________
Benziger's model, however, distinguished the right side modes so that it is easier to recognize them as thought processes which oppose those on the left. From this model, the present inventor noticed that the cutting process of analyzing opposed the connecting process of relating, and the opening process of conceiving opposed the closing process of order-setting.
Before returning to the development of the present invention, it is noted that in addition to those models already mentioned, there are now many other four-way models of temperament and personality in common use by psychologists and human development specialists. For example, the Learning Style Inventory developed in the 1970s by David Kolb uses a testing method to rate people's skills in four learning modes: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation. From these scores, the test taker is classified as a Diverger, Converger, Accommodator, or Assimilator which relates to one's temperament. Team Resources, Inc. employs the DISC Profile System.TM. based on the theories of human behavior developed by psychologist Dr. William Marston in the 1920s and '30s. Through testing, the DISC model categorizes people into one of four types:
______________________________________ Dominance (D type) Influence (I type) Driver, director Expressive, persuasive Competitive, blunt self-starter Optimistic interest in people Compliance (C type) Steadiness (S type) Conscientious, Cautious Amicable, supporter Analytical, orderly attention Easygoing, prefers security to detail and routine ______________________________________
Again a four-way pattern of diagonal opposition is evident in the descriptions of the four types in the DISC Model, but each DISC type reads like combinations of processes on sides of the Herrmann or Benziger models. Thus, the description of D type people in the DISC roughly equates to TP's in the Myers-Briggs system (I type=FP, S type=FJ, and C type=TJ). There are other such systems which categorize temperament, personality, or behavior into four categories that are identified by letters, words, and/or animal icons. Virtually all of these systems use individual written testing and scoring to determine one's personal style.
Other related methods and devices for typing personalities exist, yet none possess the unique characteristics of the present invention. U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,819, to Donald WRIGHT involves players in turn moving game pieces around a square playing pattern as determined by a roll of dice and gathering Feature Squares which characterize aspects of their personalities. Players gather squares by answering questions on cards with two answers reflecting a pair of opposing traits. When the first player has gathered one Feature Square in each of four categories, this player is then asked questions from each of four Choice Card decks to confirm that this player's personality type matches the Feature Squares he has claimed. If they match, this player wins the game, the winning player's personality is read from one of sixteen different Personality Type Profile Cards, and the game is over. Much like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), in this game sixteen personality types are possible from the combination of four sets of opposing Feature traits (representing characteristics like Extroversion or Introversion, Judging or Perceiving, etc.)
By contrast, a preferred embodiment of the present invention categorizes players into one of four possible thinking styles (which are different from the sixteen MBTI personality types), and the game is not over until all players have learned something about themselves and others. All players using the present invention equally answer every question card drawn, each of which has four possible answers (corresponding to four thinking styles). Moves across the circular and radial playing pattern are made as responses to the questions without chance being involved. The present invention uses no dice. A player's movement toward one of the comers of the board portrays their generally consistent progression toward one of the four thinking style camps. On personal scoring sheets, players also can record each of their moves to generate a pattern of their answers which confirms their self-understanding. As each player eventually moves into the camp of their own thinking style, they then advance to a higher level of play which helps other players reach their own camps. While the WRIGHT invention plays like a conventional board game with players moving by chance and accumulating tokens toward one person winning the game, a preferred embodiment of the present invention has no winner, operates as an interactive group test, and is much simpler than the WRIGHT invention. The method of play of the present invention is not dependent on a subject theme, as the WRIGHT invention is associated with personality typing. Indeed, the method of the present invention can be used to categorize groups of players into a variety of possible four-way types, the four thinking styles being one example. The WRIGHT invention board game of individual self-discovery categorizes its single winner into one of sixteen possible personality types, whereas the present invention equally tests all players so that they all come to understand how the divergent styles among the group operate as a dynamic balanced system. With all players learning about each other through playing the game, the present invention can be instructional for group learning and team training, whereas the usefulness of the WRIGHT invention is limited to a game playing activity for the players involved.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,741,539, to John SUTTON et al. utilizes a hexagonal board and playing surface which is divided into six triangles representing six traits of personality: Tough, Tender, Stable, Changeful, Intellectual, or Emotional/Physical. Players place tokens in the triangular regions to predict the personalities of other players and themselves according to the traits listed on the playing surface within these regions. During the course of play, players take turns drawing cards with different questions having two answers, and they amass points and progress tokens as awarded by other players for their responses to the questions. The game is over when the first player has progress tokens across the outermost line of hexons in the triangular region of personality types nearest their predictor token and therefore wins the game.
A preferred embodiment of the present invention has no objective to win, no points or progress tokens are awarded, all questions are answered by all players without involving chance, no attempt is made to predict players' personalities, it portrays four different thinking styles rather than six personality traits, and the playing pattern is circular and radial within a square, not hexagonal as SUTTON's game. The present invention is unique because all players equally learn about themselves and others with their progress toward self-understanding represented both by (1) movement of a playing piece, and (2) a written tally of their moves on a personal scoring sheet. This scoring sheet allows players to take from the game a record of the various thinking styles that they favored. The objective of the SUTTON game is to amass tokens within a triangular region of the playing surface, whereas with the present invention, visual representation of progress toward a characteristic thinking style is indicated by movement of the playing piece toward a particular corner of the board. A fundamental difference is that the SUTTON invention is a conventional board game activity with a winning objective, whereas the present invention is an interactive group testing method with a key objective being the understanding of people's characteristic thinking styles and their differences.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,682,956, to Leonard KRANE is directed to a game in which two players at a time move their color coded game pieces, starting from a corner of a square board, around either of two alternate paths of movement: one as a square around the outer edge of the board, and the other as a single circle inside of and touching the square at four points. During play they roll dice to determine the number of spaces moved, land on color coded spaces which are color coded in eight colors corresponding to eight color coded sets of cards with seven questions on each side of each card, test their knowledge of each other by predicting and secretly recording how the other will respond to the true/false or the three-answer multiple-choice questions on these cards, and, upon proper prediction, are awarded Relationship Sticks that are inserted in color coded tokens representing the other player. The game is over when one of them (who is then declared the winner) has been able to insert at least one color coded Relationship Stick in each of four color coded tokens of the other. All of the color coding has to do with an eight-way distinction in "color personalities" as an application of the Luscher Color Test research that people of various personalities prefer different colors. These categorizations are not described in the abstract.
KRANE's game and preferred embodiments of the present invention are vastly dissimilar and have totally different objectives. For the present invention, the objective is not necessarily to win, no points or sticks are awarded, objects are not inserted in tokens to represent progress, more than two people can play, all questions are answered by all players without involving chance or a roll of dice, no attempt is made to predict and secretly record other players' responses, it portrays four different thinking styles represented by card suit symbols rather than eight "color personalties," and the playing pattern involves moving out from the center in a radial direction toward a corner, not around the board from a corner as in KRANE's game. Here again, the KRANE invention is a conventional game activity with a winning objective, whereas the present invention is an interactive group testing method with a key objective being the understanding of people's thinking styles.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,124,214, to Jesse PAVIS is directed to a game in which players start their game pieces from one of four comer spaces of a square board and move on a continuous main course around the periphery of the board (although other possible shapes are envisioned and a peripheral movement pattern is not the only possible route of the game course). Taking turns, they roll dice to determine the number of spaces moved then individually answer questions on cards that pertain to interpreting the meaning of dreams during various life situations. The multiple choice answers have different values (the possible interpretations being measured against the prevailing school of thought) such that the player is directed to move forward or backward various numbers of spaces. Thus the game board is treated as a scoring device. If a player lands on a corner square, then a corresponding corner card is drawn and all players answer that question and, after everyone has formed their answers, move according to its directions. The game is over when one player wins the game by reaching the last marker space on the game course. The theme of the game has to do with psychology, with board features labeled "Zodiac, Mythology, Symbols, Astrology, The Freudian Circle," etc.
Neither the subject matter of the questions, the method of play, the layout of the playing surface, nor the objectives of the PAVIS game are similar to preferred embodiments of the present invention. The PAVIS invention is a conventional game activity with a winning objective, whereas the present invention is an interactive group testing method.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,124,358, to G. H. WEEDMAN, is directed to a game in which players start their game pieces from a corner space of a rectangular board and move on a continuous track around the periphery of the board. Taking turns, they individually answer how to react to situations printed within the spaces on the playing track. Players respond to the situation by selecting an answer from a series of answer cards they have in their possession. Each reaction is rated on the basis of reasonableness of the choice as established by professional experts. The rating is displayed on an answer wheel disc mounted to the board, and by rotating the disc to his answer the player is told the number of spaces to be moved. There is an element of chance in both the situations and the responses, with the result that the player's score depends on a combination of chance and skill. The game is over when one player wins the game by reaching the last space having gone twice around the game track.
Neither the subject matter of the questions, the method of play, the layout of the playing surface, nor the objectives of the WEEDMAN game are similar to any embodiment of the present invention. The WEEDMAN invention is a conventional game activity with a winning objective, whereas the present invention is an interactive group testing method.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,877,254, to John YUSCAVAGE, is directed to a game in which players move from both ends of an S-shaped game course on a square board toward a finish space at the center to win. They roll dice to move and answer questions with answers on cards, challenged by a timing device. The questions pertain to a variety of subjects by categories. This game bears no resemblance to any embodiment of the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,156,407, to Christopher MOORE, is directed to a game in which players move from a start location along a rainbow shaped arc with four adjacent playing paths with varying degrees of difficulty to reach a pot labeled "success" and win the game. The four paths have different colors, as a rainbow, and question-answer cards which determine moves are color coded to these paths. The questions and answers pertain to diverse professions or career fields. This game bears no resemblance to any embodiment of the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,923,198, to Francisco DIAZ, is directed to a game which tests players' knowledge of geographical, historical, political, sociological, or other facts. In turns, players move according to a roll of dice and can move in either direction around a rectangular game course with a country map in the middle, answering fact-based questions on cards. The winner is the first player to correctly complete his scoring sheet based on his answers to the questions on the cards. This game bears no resemblance to any embodiment of the present invention.